RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

DomKen -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 11:23:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cornflakegirl

quote:

The only ways to protect a young woman from HPV and the increased risk of cervical cancer is 100% abstinence for life or the vaccination.


Gardasil protects against some strains of HPV that cause some cancers. It absolutely DOES NOT universally protect a young woman from HPV or increased risk of cervical cancer. Thirty percent (almost a full third) of cervical cancer cases are caused by something other than what this shot supposedly protects against.

You just said I was right after claiming I was wrong.

Gardisil prevents infection by two strains of HPV responsible for more than two thirds of all cervical cancers. By not getting infected with those strains you have a decreased risk of cervical cancer. Therefore Gardasil does what I said it does.



Aylee -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 11:42:53 AM)

I am in the minority here.  I do in fact plan on Butterhead having the Gardesil shot.  I have talked to two pediatricains, my GP and my OBGYN about this.  She would recieve the shot at about 8 years old. 

Innoculation is not a subsitute for knowledge.  There are multiple reasons why to hold off on sex and why and what kind of protections to use. 

Sex education IS important.  It should not be left to the school system.  Parents should be the ones passing on that information. 

Since you cannot test a male for HPV, I think that it is better to innoculate. 



cornflakegirl -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 12:02:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: cornflakegirl

quote:

The only ways to protect a young woman from HPV and the increased risk of cervical cancer is 100% abstinence for life or the vaccination.


Gardasil protects against some strains of HPV that cause some cancers. It absolutely DOES NOT universally protect a young woman from HPV or increased risk of cervical cancer. Thirty percent (almost a full third) of cervical cancer cases are caused by something other than what this shot supposedly protects against.

You just said I was right after claiming I was wrong.

Gardisil prevents infection by two strains of HPV responsible for more than two thirds of all cervical cancers. By not getting infected with those strains you have a decreased risk of cervical cancer. Therefore Gardasil does what I said it does.



I guess we are playing with semantics then. You said:

The only ways to protect a young woman from HPV and the increased risk of cervical cancer is 100% abstinence for life or the vaccination.

The vaccination will not protect from HPV. It will protect from some strains of HPV, when it works. Vaccinations do not always work. This vaccination does not cover all strains of HPV. Therefore, the only way to fully protect against HPV is abstinence. The shot offers some protection from the strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancers. Condoms also protect against HPV about 70% of the time, according to this link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/health/main1743115.shtml

And this is my biggest concern regarding this vaccine. The bullshit One Less campaign and all the rhetoric from the makers of the vaccine (gee wonder what their motivations are!?) lets people slip into believing that the vaccine is better protection than condoms and abstinence and pap smears, when that is simply not the case.



SteelofUtah -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 12:08:35 PM)

I do not have a Vagina of my very own, so I have no valuable opinion.

That being said I offer the following.

Would you rather get the Polio Vaccine..... or woud you rather just use a clean toilet and wear a face mask everywhere you get for fear of getting Polio from Airborne Fecal Matter? Which I should remind you is EVERYWHERE.

I don't see this Guardasil as a Contraceptive I see it as a Preventative measure if it is available why not use it? Still use condoms but be extra safe as well.

Steel



mnottertail -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 12:13:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

I do not have a Vagina of my very own, so I have no valuable opinion.
Steel


Guy had been out half the night with the boys.
Goes to open the door, it is yanked out of his hand by the wife, frying pan ready in her crossed arms .
Where the hell you been?, she says. 
Out. says he
How much of that $100 I gave you did you spend.
Oh, I dunno, maybe about a hundre----80 dollars-- I suppose?
You spent it all!!!! What would you do if I went out with the girls and spent $100?
Well, how the hell could you spend a $100?  You don't drink, You don't smoke, You got your OWN pussy...





cornflakegirl -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 12:23:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

I do not have a Vagina of my very own, so I have no valuable opinion.

That being said I offer the following.

Would you rather get the Polio Vaccine..... or woud you rather just use a clean toilet and wear a face mask everywhere you get for fear of getting Polio from Airborne Fecal Matter? Which I should remind you is EVERYWHERE.

I don't see this Guardasil as a Contraceptive I see it as a Preventative measure if it is available why not use it? Still use condoms but be extra safe as well.

Steel


Vaccines have side effects. Evaluate the risk of the disease vs the risk of the vaccine and make your choice. For someone with no history of complication with any ingredient in Gardasil, Gardasil might be a good choice. For someone with a higher chance of a vaccine reaction, other precautions might be a better choice. Same with any other vaccine.

I'm not advocating NOT getting the shot so much as transparency in information regarding it's actual benefits and risks, and the actual risks of HPV in other contexts without the shot.



seababy -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 12:40:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

Pff, you won't find any such post.

Edited to add: Murphy's Law again: Anyone who thinks that stds, disasters, war or genocide reduce a population, is wrong. The opposite will occur: the population will increase. That is because fertile May thinks: "My poor uncle Benny died from influenza / was shot. I am inconsolable. I will make up for it by having three(, five, seven) more children".


So genocide (and the rest you have listed) doesn't reduce human population?
You need to get serious about your history. Were you drinking when you posted this?
Both ancient and modern history has tragically many examples of cultural populations becoming extinct or becoming so scattered and few that they never recover their cultural identity.
You have to be trolling.



DomKen -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 1:02:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cornflakegirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: cornflakegirl

quote:

The only ways to protect a young woman from HPV and the increased risk of cervical cancer is 100% abstinence for life or the vaccination.


Gardasil protects against some strains of HPV that cause some cancers. It absolutely DOES NOT universally protect a young woman from HPV or increased risk of cervical cancer. Thirty percent (almost a full third) of cervical cancer cases are caused by something other than what this shot supposedly protects against.

You just said I was right after claiming I was wrong.

Gardisil prevents infection by two strains of HPV responsible for more than two thirds of all cervical cancers. By not getting infected with those strains you have a decreased risk of cervical cancer. Therefore Gardasil does what I said it does.



I guess we are playing with semantics then. You said:

The only ways to protect a young woman from HPV and the increased risk of cervical cancer is 100% abstinence for life or the vaccination.

The vaccination will not protect from HPV. It will protect from some strains of HPV, when it works. Vaccinations do not always work. This vaccination does not cover all strains of HPV. Therefore, the only way to fully protect against HPV is abstinence. The shot offers some protection from the strains of HPV that cause 70% of cervical cancers. Condoms also protect against HPV about 70% of the time, according to this link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/22/health/main1743115.shtml

And this is my biggest concern regarding this vaccine. The bullshit One Less campaign and all the rhetoric from the makers of the vaccine (gee wonder what their motivations are!?) lets people slip into believing that the vaccine is better protection than condoms and abstinence and pap smears, when that is simply not the case.


You're cofusing some numbers. Gardasil protects women from the two strains of HPV that cause 70% or so of all cervical cancers and the two strains that cause genital warts. That means a innoculated woman has about a 70% less chance of ever getting cervical cancer.

regular correct condom usage reduces the chance of getting any HPV strain by about 70% therefore if you have sexual contact with someone with one of the 2 strains of HPV that cause most cervical cancers you still have a 30% chance of getting one of those strains plus you still have an undiminshed chance of getting cervical cancer from a non HPV cause.

So an unvaccinated woman who uses condoms every single time she ever has sex is at greater risk of getting cervical cancer than a vaccinated woman because she is still vulnerable to infection by the 2 strains in question. So the vaccine is better protection than condoms and the ads do specifically say that women should continue to get routine cervical cancer screenings, i.e. pap smears, after getting vaccinated.



cornflakegirl -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 1:19:25 PM)

After reading that I am only sure of a couple of things. One, I feel a lot more comfortable relying on knowns like condoms than unknowns like the length of the vaccine's usefulness, wther it will actually work in a given case, and the potential side effects. Two, I am not a math major nor do I play one on TV. ;)



DesFIP -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 1:47:35 PM)

When it originally came out, my daughter's doctor was against it. She is however strongly pro the new and improved version. Since she doesn't push stuff for no reason, I'll go along with it. But I am pro vaccine anyway.



lilgirl2008 -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 1:48:07 PM)

They say about half of all sexually active people in the United States between the ages of 15 and 49 currently have HPV. Of all the women, how many people actually have cervical cancer? I don't know maybe I have a different outlook on this. HPV does not cause all cases of cervical cancer. And if you have HPV that does not guarantee you will get cervial cancer. I had cervical cancer when I was 17 years old. Way before I was ever sexually active. And I don't have HPV, so why did i get cervical cancer? Who knows.

I am glad I have boys, but I still say, this isn't a big enough risk for me to risk getting the vaccine. Thats just my opinion. If i had the option for myself, I wouldn't get it for myself either.



lusciouslips19 -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 1:53:38 PM)

Its more like 90%. Women are not the only ones who have it. How do you think they get it? There just happens to be no test or treatment for men. Its pretty benign, slow growing and all that get cervical dysplasia do not get cancer, They just have cells on their cervix that are precancerous, Once it clears up it is not contagious whether on its own or with a Laser leep surgery



OrionTheWolf -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 2:11:30 PM)

I would have stood up and applauded your daughter.



Aylee -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 2:39:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach

I intensely dislike it.  They aren't pushing a new drug in the hopes of saving lives, or preventing disease..... they're pushing it to make money.
 


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainfire
what she said..... especially the fact that it's all about making money on a new drug they don't know shit about.


Just to point out a couple of things. . .

1)  There are these other companies that want to make money as well. . . they make caskets and coffins.

2)  Frankly I am leery of ANY company that does not want to make money.



Rule -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 2:53:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seababy
So genocide (and the rest you have listed) doesn't reduce human population?

Quite. Merely look at the world population figures: 1950 had two and a half billion people; 2008 had 6.7 billion people. In this period the world has seen plenty of war, of genocide, of stds and natural disasters (and traffic accidents). If your claim was true, the world ought to have far less people now than the 2.5 billion in 1950. The opposite happened. Guess what: your claim is not true. You are wrong and I am right.



seababy -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 3:40:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: seababy
So genocide (and the rest you have listed) doesn't reduce human population?


Pff, you won't find any such post.

Edited to add: Murphy's Law again: Anyone who thinks that stds, disasters, war or genocide reduce a population, is wrong. The opposite will occur: the population will increase. That is because fertile May thinks: "My poor uncle Benny died from influenza / was shot. I am inconsolable. I will make up for it by having three(, five, seven) more children".

Quite. Merely look at the world population figures: 1950 had two and a half billion people; 2008 had 6.7 billion people. In this period the world has seen plenty of war, of genocide, of stds and natural disasters (and traffic accidents). If your claim was true, the world ought to have far less people now than the 2.5 billion in 1950. The opposite happened. Guess what: your claim is not true. You are wrong and I am right.



From what I can gather your post claims that disasters directly cause population expansion above the expected population growth that would occur if large amounts of people didn't die.
I make no claim that the human population isn't breeding quicker than any disaster can kill it off.
What I am is arguing is that without these historical events we would have an even larger population now.

This is now a full thread jack of an originally great OP. So I suggest opening a new thread if you want to explore this.

IrishMist, I think its great that your daughter is such an independent thinker at this age.
Just because the majority may walk in one direction doesnt make it right. (just look at lemmings).








hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 3:56:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

1)  There are these other companies that want to make money as well. . . they make caskets and coffins.
Yep - and regardless of How it happens, ALL of us are going to eventually die, period - no escaping it regardless of gender.

quote:

2)  Frankly I am leery of ANY company that does not want to make money.
  

To an extent, so am I.  However there are companies whose Stated purpose is to prolong/improve the quality of/etcetcetc human life.  I have even less trust for companies that SAY they intend One thing, but clearly intend another..... than I do for companies who do not, in the long run, desire to make money while maintaining their Stated purpose.
 
Gods know, I'm a business owner myself - and yes, one of the purposes of having a business Is to make money.  But there are Ethical means of doing so, and Unethical means of doing the same thing.  While I would no doubt make a lot more money in a lot less time if I employed Unethical Means to acomplish the task - I would be doing MYSELF, as a Business, a huge disservice if I did so.  Because eventually - my reputation as a business would suffer, I would lose customers because of it, and would not be capable of replacing them with others.



IrishMist -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 4:19:07 PM)

Sorry it took me so long to come back to this but I wanted to let my daughter read the thread and respond also if she so desired. Needless to say, she desired lol. THE FOLLOWING IS HER RESPONSE.

I think it's important to state that I am not against the vaccine per se; I am against the methods that certain professionals ( meaning doctors, scientists, lobbyists, etc ) are using to advocate it's use. The speaker from the rally made it clear that only the use of this vaccine will prevent women from contracting the HPV virus, and from this later morphing into cervical cancer.

I may be young, but I sure am not stupid. As my mom would say " I call bs when I see it'.

Before the rally, I knew what the topic was going to be, and I knew that they were going to be discussing this vaccine and it's 'wonderful uses'. I did my research before hand.

According to the JAMA, there are more than 100 different types of HPV, and at least 15 of them are cancerous. The vaccine only targets two of those; HPV16 and HPV18. It's also stated in the editorial that infection at a young age and actual development of cancer 20 or so years later is unknown. Quoted from the editorial "the virus does not appear to be very harmful because almost all HPV infections are cleared by the immune system. In a few women, infection persists and some women may develop precancerous cervical lesions and eventually cervical cancer"

My biggest issue with all of this is that they are trying to push this vaccine into becoming one that is mandatory for all young women. They are using the argument that cervical cancer kills women; it's caused by HPV; which is contracted by being sexually active...therefore,if you take this vaccine, you will not get cervical cancer ( and yes, this is the argument that the speaker used yesterday, which is why I challenged her )

Yes, I am opposed to this vaccine becoming mandatory. If a person wants to optionally obtain it, then by all means, do so. But be fully informed first and know that there ARE other options available.

( I included the JAMA link for those who want to look at it )

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/7/795?home#REF-JED90041-13



Mercnbeth -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 4:31:39 PM)

quote:

...I had cervical cancer when I was 17 years old. Way before I was ever sexually active. And I don't have HPV, so why did i get cervical cancer? Who knows...


your mom's gynecologist might know.
 
quote:

 Clear cell adenocarcinoma or mesonephroma is a rare type of adenocarcinoma. It usually affects cells in the female genital tract. Vaginal clear cell adenoma is common in women in their late teens and early 20's whose mothers took diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy. Some of these cancers may not appear until 30's or 40's and the overall risk is 1 in 1000 who were exposed in utero to DES. The cells become vacuolated and filled with glycogen, hence the term 'clear cell'. The cancer may arise from the cervix or more frequently from the vaginal mucosa and possibly derives from vaginal adenosis. This cancer is insidious and slow growing but very difficult to treat so it is mandatory that women exposed to DES during pregnancy be checked regularly by their physician.
The tumour cells appear clear when viewed through a microscope, for this reason it is classified as a clear cell carcinoma
cervical cancer, as well as clear cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_cell_adenocarcinoma



lilgirl2008 -> RE: OMG...it seems that my open talk policy is coming back to haunt me (8/19/2009 5:04:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

...I had cervical cancer when I was 17 years old. Way before I was ever sexually active. And I don't have HPV, so why did i get cervical cancer? Who knows...


your mom's gynecologist might know.
 
quote:

 Clear cell adenocarcinoma or mesonephroma is a rare type of adenocarcinoma. It usually affects cells in the female genital tract. Vaginal clear cell adenoma is common in women in their late teens and early 20's whose mothers took diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy. Some of these cancers may not appear until 30's or 40's and the overall risk is 1 in 1000 who were exposed in utero to DES. The cells become vacuolated and filled with glycogen, hence the term 'clear cell'. The cancer may arise from the cervix or more frequently from the vaginal mucosa and possibly derives from vaginal adenosis. This cancer is insidious and slow growing but very difficult to treat so it is mandatory that women exposed to DES during pregnancy be checked regularly by their physician.
The tumour cells appear clear when viewed through a microscope, for this reason it is classified as a clear cell carcinoma
cervical cancer, as well as clear cell adenocarcinoma of the vagina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_cell_adenocarcinoma



Thanks for the information. I know that was one of the questions that they asked at the time. She assured me that she had never taken anything during her pregnancy except she did smoke cigarettes. I was the last of four, and I have three older brothers. Of course none of them had cervical cancer LOL. And since I have not had any reoccurance. I did get tested every three months, then it went to six months, and now it is just every year with a yearly pap smear. Thank goodness.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875